FILM REVIEW: THE PRIVATE LIVES OF PIPPA LEE

Robin Wright Penn and Alan Arkin in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee.

Look back in wonder

By Miranda Inganni 

Stepping forward in cinematic quality, actor turned writer-director Rebecca Miller (Personal Velocity; The Ballad of Jack and Rose) has made her best film yet, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee.  

Pippa Lee (Robin Wright Penn) and her publishing mogul husband, Herb Lee (Alan Arkin), have just relocated from New York City to a retirement community in a quiet suburb in Connecticut. Herb is 30-odd years Pippa’s senior and his health is failing.  Surrounded by their creative cronies from NYC at their inaugural dinner party, one of Herb’s friends, novelist Sam Shapiro (Mike Binder), offers a toast to Pippa referring to her as an “icon of an artist’s wife.” Indeed, Pippa seems the embodiment of the trophy wife: beautiful, charming, gracious and reserved. But there is something too reserved about Pippa. There is a vapid, indefinite quality about her, practically a vacancy in her eyes. While transitioning to this new life, Pippa is forced to confront her storied past.

Through a series of voiceovers and flashbacks, we learn that Pippa grew up with a drug-addicted mother (Maria Bello) whose mood swings dictated Pippa’s own emotional ups and downs. Always trying to please her neurotic mother, Pippa Sarkissian (Blake Lively) feebly attempts to be the beautiful, quiet girl her mother desperately wants her to be, but eventually she rebels and runs to NYC to live with her aunt (Robin Weigert) and her girlfriend, Kat (played wonderfully by an understated Julianne Moore). 

Exposed to a lifestyle so unlike her home life, teenage Pippa (Blake Lively) seems at first to be in control and enjoying her newfound freedom. However, she soon slides into a life of drugs and debauchery.

It’s during this lost time that Pippa meets Herb. Despite the fact he’s married to the gorgeous Gigi (Monica Bellucci), the two begin a love affair with Pippa taking the place of Gigi (who in turn replaced Herb’s first wife). Herb, apparently always wanting the newer, younger model, takes on a Pygmalion presence, transforming the wild child into his ideal wife. Unfortunately, while Herb may know exactly what he wants Pippa to be, she herself doesn’t seem to have a clue.

As Pippa, now nearly 50, questions her seemingly idyllic life, we start to see the cracks that are eroding – her tense relationship with her daughter, her somnambulant binge eating and trips to the store for cigarettes.

It’s at the convenience store where Pippa repeatedly encounters her new neighbor’s son, Chris (Keanu Reeves), a recent divorcee temporarily staying with his parents (Shirley Knight and J.R. Horne). These two misfits form a bond – neither one belongs in this aging community.  

It is through Chris that Pippa believes she is beginning to discover her true self. But why does Pippa need a man to figure out who she is? Pippa relies on others to define her, even though she reaches a point where she could go out on her own to discover herself.

The lead performances of Wright Penn and Arkin are strong and the excellent supporting cast contributes an enormous amount. Each role is integral to the story and the cast creates an impressive ensemble. Lively is her usual sun kissed, stunning self, just with more eyeliner and bigger hair. This works well for the character as Lively’s screen presence is clearly there, but she lacks personality (all the better for Herb to easily manipulate). 

Miller, on whose book of the same name the movie is based, creates a compelling character study, taking two actresses playing the same role and tying their disparate narratives into a tidy package. I just wish Pippa, not unlike a lot of women, could have done more for herself by herself. 

MUSIC: KISS ALIVE

Rock icon Paul Stanley at Honda Center. Photo by Felipe Gamboa.

Kiss at 35

By Carlin Nguyen

Live pyrotechnics and gnarly special effects were the norm as the band, Kiss, came into Anaheim, California to perform at Honda Center last night.

In front of an estimated 15,000 attendees, the dynamic quartet of Paul Stanley (rhythm guitar, vocals), Gene Simmons (bass guitar, backing vocals), Tommy Thayer (lead guitar, vocals) and Eric Singer (drums, vocals) came and rocked the stage for "KISS Alive 35" -- a commemoration of the 35 years the band has been together. (Only Simmons and Stanley remain from the original line up.)

On stage, Thayer performed his guitar solo like cream and butter during “Cold Gin” for which the song refers to the desirable effects of consuming gin for a male’s sex drive. The blue and blurry lighting effects during the song kept the crowds on their heels.

The straight shooting attitude of Simmons is clear with his fire-flurry sword as he strikes it onstage while performing “Hotter Than Hell.” He always remembers to breathe in-and-out with blood and still lives life to his fullest.

Stanley also had a trick up in his sleeves and unexpectedly let it out during “Love Gun.” It was hard to miss: flying.

Singer can really play on the drums. A member since officially joining the band in 2002, during “100,000 Years” his drum solo performance stood out like a knife in the heart. His skill could easily be compared to other well-known drummers such as Tommy Lee (Motley Crue) or Chad Smith (Red Hot Chili Peppers).

Together now for 35 years, when the band performed “Rock And Roll All Night,” it was evident to the crowd that the band will not be slowing down anytime soon.

Buckcherry was the opening act.

FILM REVIEW: OLD DOGS

Seth Green, John Travolta and Robin Williams get ruff in Old Dogs. 

Put me down, please
 
By Miranda Inganni

When two men in their 50s suddenly discover one is the father of 7-year-old twins, hilarity could ensue. But not in the case of Disney's Old Dogs.

Dan (Robin Williams) and Charlie (John Travolta) have been best friends and business partners for decades.  While Dan can't get over the love of his life, Vicki (Kelly Preston), a woman he met and drunkenly married for 24 hours, Charlie is his polar opposite -- still acting like a playboy and flirting with women half his age. As it turns out, Dan unknowingly fathered twins, played by Travolta and Preston's real-life daughter, Ella Bleu Travolta, and television and movie/television "veteran," Conner Rayburn. Thanks to Dan's bumbling ways, the men must take care of the kids for two weeks, all the while trying to close the biggest deal in their company's history.

Predictably the kids create much mischief while teaching the men about what really matters in life. Dan learns how to be more carefree, while Charlie discovers how to love someone other than himself. Unsurprisingly, everything works out in the end for all involved. Except for Charlie's dog. He dies after being exploited for cheap laughter by director Walt Becker.

The supporting cast includes such accomplished comedic actors as Seth Green, Rita Wilson, Lori Loughlin, Matt Dillon, Amy Sedaris, Saburo Shimono and the late Bernie Mac.

If you enjoy such movies as Wild Hogs and Van Wilder (directed by Becker), The Family Man (written by the Old Dogs' writing team of Davids Diamond and Weissman), Wedding Crashers and The Comebacks (yup, same producers on those flicks and this one: Andrew Panay, Robert L. Levy and Peter Abrams), then you'll probably find a chuckle or two in Old Dogs. This PG-rated film comes with predictable pedestrian humor -- flatulence, groin injuries, cartoonish violence.  Despite the impressive cast, though, it falls short on big laughs.  I would have much preferred to watch geriatric canines for two hours.

FILM REVIEW: THE END OF POVERTY

The struggle for the planet's poor marches on. 
Kill the poor

By Don Simpson

Philippe Diaz’s documentary (narrated by Martin Sheen) The End of Poverty? sets out to prove that worldwide poverty is by no means an accident – it was created and is being perpetuated by the western world. Diaz calls upon experts from around the globe to dutifully illustrate the connections between colonialism and the free market system of today.

In 1492 (while Columbus was sailing the ocean blue…) the Spanish and Portuguese came to the Americas; they pillaged the land of Latin America and the indigenous economies were destroyed by mining and plantation agriculture. Thus commenced a Third World economy based solely upon the export of raw materials – crippling the manufacturing industries in these areas and creating an economic structure of dependence – which has remained in existence ever since.

Even when the colonized countries achieved independence, the new governments continued to perpetuate the raw materials export-based economic system. Governments in Indonesia, Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and many other countries have sought to break from this economic system of dependence, but the U.S. has promptly retaliated by financing political coups, assassinations, or sending in the U.S. Marines.

The political independence of Third World nations also prompted new forms of economic control maintained by the western world – the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The former colonial governments left paralyzing amounts of international debt behind, keeping their former colonies in constant financial dependence of their former masters. After the global depression of 1982, the IMF gained increased leverage over the Third World governments. Following the Washington Consensus, many governments were required by the IMF to privatize communications, transportation, education, health care, and water supply – making these services unaffordable for the poor.

The End of Poverty? features a multitude of talking heads: Nobel prize winners in economics Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz; expert authors Susan George (Another World Is Possible If), Eric Toussaint (The World Bank: A Never Ending Coup d’Etat), John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), Chalmers Johnson (Nemesis: The Last Days of the America Republic), Brookings Institute fellow and author, William Easterly (White Man’s Burden); Bolivia’s Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera; and leaders of social movements in Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Kenya and Tanzania.

The discussion, as orchestrated by Diaz, is very informative and enlightening – though very one-sided and opinionated. I do not purport to be an expert on global economics, but I am not completely convinced that this is all hard truth. I suspect that more discerning viewers may interpret some of the statements made by the interviewees as mere conspiracy theories – as a lot of the content seems to be based on opinions rather than facts. Though it’s indisputable that capitalism and the free market system does propagate selfish and greedy behavior, I would like to see more hard evidence that the western world is purposefully and maliciously suppressing the third world from developing independent economic systems.

No matter whether there is a true capitalist conspiracy behind worldwide poverty or not, it is obvious that changes must be made. Since Jello Biafra’s satirical solution offered in the Dead Kennedys’ song “Kill the Poor” (in summary: killing the poor with nuclear bombs) obviously won’t fix the cause, The End of Poverty? offers some specific policy changes that are mandatory in order to end poverty: one) cancel international debts; two) create fairer trade arrangements; three) impose taxes on wealth, not consumption of necessities; four) end privatization of natural resources; five) develop land reform to share land, or its value, among the actual producers of farm products; and six) initiate programs of de-growth in the North, to reduce wasteful consumption.

Of course the mere adoption of these policies will not end poverty in the world. The closing theme of The End of Poverty? is that the resources of the earth must be shared equitably. The audience is asked to ponder the changes our lives must undergo for us to finally take responsibility for the ongoing impoverishment of the Third World.

The release of The End of Poverty? could not have been more timely, as the United States embarks upon the celebration of the one-two punch of our most gluttonous calendar days of the year: Thanksgiving and Black Friday. As we are overindulging on Turkey (or Tofurkey) on Thanksgiving Day, we should keep in mind that: “Every 3.6 seconds another person dies of starvation and the large majority are children under the age of 5.” Then, while on our Black Friday holiday shopping rampages (being good little capitalists – trying to resuscitate the free market system by mindless spending), we should remember that: “More than one billion people in the world live on less than one dollar a day.” Happy holidays!

FILM NEWS: THE END OF POVERTY?

The End of Poverty? Director Phillip Diaz. Photo by Ed Rampell.

Food for thought

By Ed Rampell

The End of Poverty? is a kind of bookend to Capitalism: A Love Story. If Michael Moore’s movie examines how private enterprise operates at home, writer-director Philippe Diaz’s documentary explores what happens when that economic system is exported to the Third World. As scathing exposes of exploitation these nonfiction films share much -- ironic titles, onscreen social critics and most importantly, the down and out are ready for their close-ups. At an Los Angeles screening of Capitalism Moore told me he liked The End of Poverty? and “showed it at my theater in Traverse City, Michigan.”

With The End of Poverty? Kenya and Tanzania location shooting, Diaz’s doc -- which has played on the film festival circuit from Cannes to Nairobi to Sao Paulo to Calcutta -- was a natural for L.A.’s Pan African Film Festival. PAFF’s Executive Director, ex-Black Panther Ayuko Babu, was so enthusiastic about The End of Poverty? he watched it twice; last February the 104-minute film won an Honorable Mention in that PAFF’s Best Documentary category. Activist/actor James Cromwell, the farmer in 1995’s talking pig comedy, Babe says, “This film should be discussed and seen by as many people as possible.” 

The End of Poverty? activists, academics, authors and experts include ex-CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson, former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera and John Perkins, who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. 

The interviewees and filmmakers assert:

Every 3.6 seconds someone starves to death. Sixteen thousand children die daily due to hunger. Over eight hundred million people go to bed hungry, including 300 million children. Nearly three billion people live on less than $2 a day; more than 1 billion survive on less than $1 per day; one hundred and sixty-two million people subsist on less than 50 cents daily. The developing world spends $13 in debt service for every $1 it received in grants. The world’s richest 1% owns 32% of its wealth. In Latin America, the richest 1% receives over 400 times as much income as the poorest 1%. The greater the disparity wealth, the more violent societies are. There are 60 million-plus slaves around the world today.

How did this massive injustice and inequality come about? The End of Poverty? goes to globalization’s beginnings, to 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean -- not blue, but red, with blood spilled by empire. As the film documents, “It’s what the wealth of Europe, for the most part, was based on, when you consider not only the exploitation of the ‘New World’… but also what happened in Africa,” says the Oscar-nominated and Emmy-nominated Cromwell. “The Europe the explorers left was basically economically, physically and spiritually bankrupt... It was the exploitation of all the Third World’s resources that allowed Europe to exist at all… America… was built at the expense of indigenous people, and… to a great extent, by slave labor imported from Africa or China,” notes Cromwell, who played presidents in the 2002 film, The Sum of All Fears, LBJ in the 2002 film, RFK and Bush Senior in Oliver Stone’s 2008 film, W, plus Prince Philip in the 2006 film, The Queen, and Pope Pius XII in an upcoming mini-series.

Diaz explains the doc’s name adds a question mark to the title of ex-Harvard professor Jeffrey Sachs’ book because “we’re attacking the economists and politicians who say these stupid things about poverty… Sachs is considered ‘Mr. Poverty’ in the U.S., he’s running all around the world with [U.2's singer] Bono, to promote his solution to poverty, which are, very simply, mosquito nets and fertilizer… They help… but don’t solve anything. By promoting these ideas, you just prevent people from understanding poverty’s true cause.”

In stark contrast The End of Poverty? exposes the structural causes of mass misery, tracing their 500-year-old imperial origins. Diaz points out before the conquistadors “there was no massive starvation as we see it today,” after traditional land-based “natural economies” were replaced by “consumer societies,” turning what was commonly owned into commodities. The roots of contemporary wretchedness are vast land confiscations, resource misappropriations, extraction and export of raw materials -- all benefiting foreign elites and local lackeys. This topsy-turvy system makes “Germany the biggest export of coffee; Germany doesn’t have one single bush of coffee,” Diaz observes.

To enforce their rule and these inequities, Johnson and economic hit man Perkins contend the metropoles use bribery, indebtedness and in the case of nationalists -- such as Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh, Guatemalan agrarian reformer President Arbenz or Chile’s socialist President Allende -- deploy CIA “jackals” or military intervention.

Diaz and other Sachs detractors, including Naomi Klein, also contend Sachs’ neo-liberal “shock therapy” privatization programs for harming workers in Bolivia, Russia, and Poland. 

“This man should be in jail, he’s very dangerous,” Diaz declares. If Klein reveals the rise of “Disaster Capitalism” in The Shock Doctrine, Diaz documents the 500-year rise of “Disaster Imperialism.”

Why should downsized, outsourced Western workers care about Third World penury? Given declining U.S. living standards, unemployment, evictions and Moore’s contention in Capitalism that one percent of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95%, Diaz says, “We could have made the same movie about America and the northern countries… Everywhere, it’s the same thing. The poor pay for the system. They pay to put more and more money every year into the pockets of the elite and corporations. But the problem is much more deep, burning and dramatic in the south because… they can’t survive, they’ll die.” Diaz thinks the difference in northern and southern suffering is in degree, not kind. Capitalism discloses corporations profiteering from employees’ deaths, but The End of Poverty? literally deals with “dead peasants.”

Diaz says Martin Sheen narrated The End of Poverty? for donations to causes, such as Catholic Worker. Cromwell notes: “Our celebrity allows us to be heard, which, if you use that appropriately… to express opinions people might not necessarily hear in the corporate media, that tends to stifle any expression of opposition or analysis… Martin Sheen is an extraordinary activist, deeply committed… he’s always been involved… in issues of war and peace, individual rights, the rights of oppressed, environmental… social… I heartily, heartily applaud and support him. He’s done an extraordinary job.”

Cromwell believes the post-9/11 surge in documentaries “is always healthy; the illness of our country is the concentration of power into the hands of fewer and fewer people who control more and more of our means of expression... The amount of information that can be conveyed is extraordinary, and it informs people about the world they live in and empowers them… one reason why I believe they’re suppressed. Luckily, Michael Moore and a number of others have become popular enough that they can’t be suppressed.”

Although Diaz grew up in Paris, his grandfather migrated to France from Spain after Franco seized power. Diaz studied philosophy and law at the Sorbonne; he began professionally making films at 19. He produced an early AIDs-themed feature, 1986’s Mauvais Sang, which helped launch the careers of Juliette Binoche and Julie Delpy, and 1988’s Calcutta-shot La Nuit Bengali, starring Hugh Grant. Diaz relocated to L.A. in the 1990s, co-founding Cinema Libre, a distribution (theatrical and DVD) and production company of progressive, independent documentary, feature and foreign films. Cinema Libre’s motto is: “Opening eyes and minds one film at a time”; its animated logo depicts an eye opening and shattering prison bars.

Cinema Libre titles include the award-winning, Diaz-directed, Sierra Leone-shot The Empire in Africa, Giuliani Time, McLibel, Deflating the Elephant with Sean Penn, Tim Robbins’ Embedded, Robert Greenwald’s Uncovered: The War on Iraq and Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, plus Jean-Jacques Beineix, Jean Gabin and Brigitte Bardot pictures. Cinema Libre’s Speaking Freely series, derived from footage shot while making The End of Poverty?, features progressives such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Located in L.A.’s San Fernando Valley, Cinema Libre “is a mini-mini-studio where everything is under one roof… shooting equipment, the entire post-production chain, we do everything in-house: editing, special effects, sound, we even transfer digital to 35mm,” explains Diaz.

Throughout The End of Poverty?, which was largely funded by the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, are haunting, lingering shots of children, whom Diaz calls “the innocent victims of the system,” the meek inheriting not the Earth, but disaster imperialism’s consequences. While the doc’s commentators have insightful analyses, it’s the dispossessed themselves who speak most eloquently. During the three year-plus shoot in Latin America, Africa and Asia Diaz discovered “most poor people I met had a very clear understanding why they were in this situation and of the political and economic situation around the world.” Brazilian sugarcane cutters movingly describe the 21st century slavery of landless peasants. Grace, a Kenyan tea plucker, sums up the poverty-stricken’s plight: “Our stomachs are small.”

The End of Poverty? proposes solutions far more radical and sweeping than nets and fertilizers: agrarian reform, redistribution of wealth, and sharing of resources. In Capitalism, Moore calls this new system “democracy;” others, like Chavez, call it “21st century socialism.”

Diaz’s next film is a sort of sequel -- a drama called The Last Days of Karl Marx. 

The End of Poverty? opens in New York on Nov. 13. It opens Nov. 25 in L.A., followed by a platform national release. For more info see: www.TheEndofPoverty.com.

.

AFI FEST 2009: IMAGES

Director Kirk Jones, Kate Beckinsale, Robert De Niro, and Drew Barrymore attend the AFI Fest 2009 gala screening of Everybody's Fine. Photo by Ed Rampell.

For more images of AFI Fest 2009, go to http://jestherentimages.blogspot.com/

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: KARIN ALBOU

A scene from writer-director Karin Albou's The Wedding Song.

A View of One’s Own

By John Esther

Continuing to explore sexuality and relationships against a community backdrop, Karin Albou’s The Wedding Song (Le Chant des Mariées) breaks barriers.

The follow up to her excellent feature debut, Little Jerusalem (La Petite Jerusalem), director-writer-actor Albou moves her latest film from a micro-community of contemporary Paris to Tunis, Tunisia, 1942, where poor Jews and Arabs live together with ease until a schism called Nazism appears.

Growing up in the same house, Nour (Olympe Borval) and Myriam (Lizzie Brocheré) have been lifelong friends. Nour is a sheltered, uneducated Muslim and Myriam is a rebellious, freethinking Jew. The Jewish-Arab issue is never a question until Nazis begin to occupy Tunisia and “racial laws” are implemented.

Miriam is about to marry her cousin, Khaled (Najib Oudghin), a loafer and, eventually, a collaborator. Meanwhile, Myriam’s mother, Tita (Albou), is arranging her daughter to marry Raoul (Simon Abkarian), a rich Jewish doctor who can well afford the Jewish tax imposed on the occupiers. Raoul, too, collaborates with the occupiers.

Exploring multiple dualities -- culture-faith; Jew-Arab; femininity-masculinity; tradition-modernism; etc. -- against an original World War II backdrop, The Wedding Song proves Albou one of the most original voices of recent years.

The daughter of a French mother and Algerian father, Albou grew up in France singing and dancing before studying theater and literature. Eventually she enrolled in film school to study screenwriting. After school she made her first short film, Chutl, which won the Best First Movie Cinecinema Award. Her second short, Aid el-Kebir, was a love story set in Algeria.

In addition to international acclaim and critic praise, Albou’s first feature, Little Jerusalem, won the Best Screenplay prize at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival (Critic’s Week section) and received two nominations: Best First Work and Most Promising Actress to the film’s lead, Fanny Valette, at the 2006 César Awards (France’s Oscars).

However, despite the success of La Petite Jerusalem and the significant strength of The Wedding Song, the latter has been relegated to Jewish film festivals. Is it a conspiracy?

We spoke to Albou about her work.

JEsther Entertainment: Why did you want to make this film?
Karin Albou: My first idea was to portray a sisterly friendship between two girls and to show how they don’t see their Jewish and Muslim identities as an issue. They are aware they are a little different, but suddenly, as war disrupts their lives, they find themselves on opposite sides. But, as war drives them apart, they unite as women. Both of them are oriental -- even if one is Jewish and the other Muslim -- and have grown up in a patriarchal society. So I mainly wanted to talk about the personal cost of war. Then the historical frame came to me after I discovered of Nazis occupied Tunisia for six months: Except for historians, nobody knew about it and there was no movie dealing with that period of time.

JE: I understand the story was also inspired by your paternal grandmother, Germaine Esther? How historical/biographical is it?
KA: During my twenties I was living at my grandmother’s. I found a box a letters from Germany written by my grandfather. Because he was from Algeria, I didn’t know he went to Germany during WWII. I thought French colonies had been spared from the war. Then she explained that Jews in Algeria were stripped off their French citizenships during the Vichy French government and forbidden to work in many sectors. She couldn’t work because she was Jewish while my grandfather was a POW in Germany. It was only when I was editing the movie I understood that Tita (a nickname for Esther) is a tribute to my grandma

JE: Which character do you identify with the most and why?
KA: I surely don’t identify with Tita. She is very different from me and that is why it was so exciting and challenging for me to play her. I had to search deep in myself to find what emotionally triggers her and makes her think she has the right to marry her daughter against her will. Personally, I would never do that to my daughter. I feel close to Nour and Myriam because both lose their purity while being thrown into the violence of the world. That is why I chose to set the film during their weddings, which is a physical and symbolic loss of childhood. In a way the film is an allegory of the transition from childhood to adulthood, both politically and sexually.

JE: Could you discuss a few of the primary casting obstacles?
KA: The main obstacle was to find actresses who would appear naked. In Tunisia it was impossible. That is why I decided to play Tita; I don’t live there anymore so I don’t mind. That is also why it took me a few months to find Nour -- an actress who looks young, uneducated, who would kiss a boy and who would get naked.

JE: What are the particular challenges making a film in Tunisia, especially as a Jew or as a woman?
KA: The challenge was to make this particular movie in Tunisia – the fact that a woman allows herself to shoot sex scenes, including explicit nudity and, above all, close-ups of her crotch. Some people perceived it as a provocation, or even obscenity, because Tunisian (both Muslim and Jewish) culture is very modest. One doesn’t talk about sexuality. What was more challenging is what I show about Muslim and Jewish relationships -- a deep love and understanding as well as a deep distance and mistrust. This loving relationship can also become very violent.

JE: What are your political intentions with The Wedding Song?
KA: At first I didn’t want to make a political movie. That is why I chose to portray this friendship story during WWII and not nowadays where people are obsessed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and see everything though this reducing lense. I didn’t want the audience to say who is right and who is wrong, but to feel how two girls find themselves on opposite sides. Besides, I think we – in France and Israel, not in the United States -- are oversaturated with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on TV and that maybe the task of cinema is to show something else than what we see on TV. Of course now, when I step back, I see that my movie is actually also political and can address contemporary issues. The main message is that if it was possible to love one another in the most tragic moment of history, it should be possible now. Maybe because Tunisia is a country that always tries to deny its own violence in general? I wanted to put an end to this mythology and say that, as most others countries in the world, Tunisia is not spared from violence -- political, historical and even intimate violence. For instance, I didn’t choose golden and warm colors for the set and costume designs, but cold, pale blue tints in order to break the Orientalist view of a warm and nice country because Tunisia is not only that.

JE: Your first two features address sexuality within (or against) the community? Why are you drawn to those kinds of links?
KA: I still don’t understand why I address these issues. I don’t want to answer something just to answer something and pretend that I am witty and know everything about myself. I really don’t know and I think it is part of my personal mystery that I need to confront in my work.

JE: The waxing scene of Myriam’s pubic hair has stirred quite a bit of debate. Why?
KA: I have been told that it is the first time one sees such a scene in a movie. And new things create debate. The scene has kept my film out of more than one film festival.

JE: Young women, nudity, sexual exploration (fornication; masturbation), "bikini" waxing, etc., are the kinds of themes one would think young people would like to see in a film, yet your audiences tend to be older. What do you think is happening?
KA: When young people, by chance or because they follow their parents, see my movies they usually like it. They come to talk with me after the Q&A, to tell me they feel very close to the characters. They don’t really have the opportunity to see these kinds of movies -- not only mine, all art movies -- except by chance. They wouldn’t go on their initiative, because apparently, they are not attracted to movies that deal with issues they face everyday. They see cinema as an entertainment. The main problem for the distribution of art movies is that it is difficult to grow a young audience.

JE: Although there is a deconstruction of the male gaze in your work, you have plenty of female nudity in both films. There is little male nudity.
KA: Well, maybe in my next movie there will be a waxing scene of a man’s balls. [Laughs]. Seriously, I think the answer is in your question: Maybe my task as a filmmaker is to talk about women as a woman because throughout the history of art and cinema, femininity has always been seen and described by male gaze. It is quite new that women have the chance to talk about themselves. But I am not as woman-centered as you suggest. In La petite Jerusalem I showed both men and women naked. In The Wedding Song the problem was that Simon Abkarian didn’t want to be naked in the movie. But while I was shooting the honeymoon scene, I realized it is better for the movie because it is more humiliating for Myriam to show that she is naked and Raoul is not. Raoul appears to be more macho and not powerless in the face of her. In the honeymoon scene between Nour and Khaled they are both naked, which is another detail that shows the modernity of Khaled. And the nudity is meaningful in that scene because they talk about the Koran. They are equal on a religious level rather than on the nudity level. In that scene male nudity is very important and I would have been frustrated and limited if Najib had not accepted to be naked. [Laughs]

JE: Without sounding too sycophantic I should say the scene where Myriam hides under her mother's legs when Khaled escorts the Nazis to her house is brilliant. Many narratives are simultaneously working on many levels. Can you tell us how you conceived that scene?
KA: Thank you, John. I am very happy you mention that scene. You are the second journalist who stresses its importance. During the editing I was about to cut it because some people didn’t like it. I didn’t know how to explain why it was so meaningful. They finally trusted me and I kept it. I now realize it is a kind of rebirth for Myriam in a world where she is alone without Nour and her mother. So when she hides between her mother's legs, she is also symbolically in her womb. And she sees Khaled and the real terror of the situation like an unborn baby. Another level is that Tita hides her with her sexuality and maybe protects her by attempting to be attractive to the soldiers – as a distraction. On another level Tita is no longer a character; she is just legs and a body. She disappears from the narrative and allows Myriam to be woman, an active character.

JE: It is also the point where Myriam understands the real horror of the situation.
KA: Correct. Tita shows her daughter that her mother is not just being mean by making her marry Raoul.

JE: While the characters have flaws, if there is one glaring problem with The Wedding Song, it is that the Jewish characters are more sympathetic than their Arab counterparts (i.e. Myriam vs. Nour; Raoul vs. Khaled; Tita vs. Nour's father).
KA: To feel sympathy and antipathy for a character is very subjective. Personally I think Nour’s father is nicer and wiser than Tita. Nour is as nice as Myriam. Don’t forget she saves Myriam in the hammam (women’s bathhouse), which is very brave. And don’t forget they are both culturally Arab and they speak Arabic. Khaled and Raoul are both ambivalent characters and they have an opposite narrative arc because they are seen through the girls’ eyes. Khaled seems more sympathetic at first than Raoul because he symbolizes a “Prince Charming” before that changes. Khaled is macho but also very modern and liberal with Nour because he gives her books to read, he doesn’t drop her when she is not a virgin anymore and takes responsibility. He allows her to be free at the end when he fakes her loss of virginity with the bloodstained sheet. What he does politically is terrible, but I give him psychological motivations -- he is jealous, he doesn’t have work -- to let the audience feel compassion for him or not. Usually Arab people in the audience think that Khaled corresponds with a certain sociologic reality. That kind of machismo he shows still exists today in most Arab countries, because they are non democratic. It is quite subversive to write a character like Khaled in France and I like it. It's a bit different now, but the problem in many French movies with Arab characters is their lack of reality and credibility because they don’t have any flaws and ambivalence. They have to be "perfect Arabs.” It is the same problem for all minorities. It is an ideological stance because France was a former colonialist country. But to me it is a mistake that is rooted in the same symptoms of racism. You deny people their reality and complexity. You demand them to be flawless because they have to be emblematic of your own non-racist opinions.

JE: Despite the success of La Petite Jerusalem at Cannes and elsewhere, plus the high quality and praise of The Wedding Song, the latter has only appeared in Jewish Film Festivals. A conspiracy?
KA: Well, I was aware of the false accusation of "The Jewish plot" but I never heard about "The Goyim plot." [Laughs]. Seriously, the main reason is because it didn’t correspond with the French period of release of the movie in December. I am very grateful Jewish film festivals like my movie. Considering others festivals, perhaps they didn’t understand the novelty of my movie? Usually most of the WWII fiction movies take place in Europe or France instead of in the former French colonies. The Wedding Song is the only film describing what happened in Tunisia and reminds us the Shoah was not only an European issue, but that the Nazis had spread it all over the world, as it happened in Tunisia and Libya.

JE: What are the particular challenges you face as "Jewish Female" filmmaker?
KA: The main challenge is that I don’t really see myself as a Jewish filmmaker. I feel myself as a filmmaker who tries to describe universal feelings in a specific cultural surrounding. My cinematographic mentor or heritage could be Martin Scorsese’s first movies, such as Mean Streets. Actually it is the fact that this movie is going to Jewish film festivals that makes me feel that, yes, maybe I am a Jewish filmmaker.

JE: Judging by the research and responses I have read your work also strikes a positive chord with non-Semitic men (i.e. gentiles). What do you think is going on there? Are Jewish/Arab women still "exotic" or representing the Other in the eyes of Occidental males?
KA: Men can answer that question. Representing "the Other" and being exotic is the same. For western audiences movies may be exotic because they are different – like the films of Satyajit Ray and Abbas Kiarostami. Maybe exoticism is the first step of cultural dialogue, or the first step of innovation. Perhaps it is as negative as it sounds. For instance, because I am French or Arab-Jew or whatever (I don’t know exactly what I am!), for me a big city like Los Angeles, or even the boonies, are very exotic because it is very far from what I know.

FILM REVIEW: A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Screwge this remake

By John Esther

Angered by recent Wall Street events of grand greed and government complicity, one of Hollywood's most reactionary artists, Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future; Forrest Gump), has turned his newfound socialism and channeled it into a cold critique of capitalism worthy of Gang of Four.

I jest, there is nothing contemporary or cool about the latest cinematic adaptation of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Presented in Disney Digital 3D, A Christmas Carol stars a barely recognizable Jim Carrey as Ebeneezer Scrooge, the miscreant, miserly misanthrope who lives to hate until he is visited by three ghosts -- all haphazardly played by Carrey and noticeably lacking any psychological insight considering the trope -- one Christmas Eve and finds redemption in his coal soul before it is too late.

From concept (Zemeckis' comments on Dickens' adaptation desires of the novel are laughable) to execution, not only is this an awful adaptation of A Christmas Carol, it may just be the biggest financial loser of the season. Where is the audience for this $175 million-plus movie? Judging by the press screening the film is too rambunctious for kids. The adolescent market will be heading for This is it, Paranormal Activity and the Fourth Kind. Adults have other choices such as the literary choice of Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire or the middlebrow fare of The Men Who Stare at Goats. In fact it is hard to imagine adults will take a trip over to a theater, slap on some 3-D glasses and watch a remake of a story they have seen so many times and in so many ways over decades for free at home. Home viewing sales to the rescue!

FILM REVIEW: PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL "PUSH" BY SAPPHIRE

The Oscar race has begun? Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire opens tomorrow.

Trials and tribulations in the hyper-real ghetto

By Don Simpson

Set in Harlem, Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire is the heart wrenching tale of Clareece “Precious” Jones (Gabourey Sidibe), an obese, illiterate, abused and molested 16-year-old African-American girl.

Impregnated for the second time by her otherwise absentee father, Precious is expelled from high school; but her principal, who recognizes Precious’ true potential, refers her to an alternative school (Each One Teach One) with an intimate student-to-teacher ratio and teachers and counselors who are appropriately trained to work with troubled students.

As things improve at school, matters at home spin ferociously out of control. Precious’ welfare queen mother (Mo’Nique) has always treated her as a slave and a human punching bag, but the abuse escalates tenfold once Precious brings her second child home from the hospital.

We know that Precious does not want to follow in her mother’s footsteps; she frequently escapes to another life in daydreams in which fantasizes about wearing fancy clothes and dancing and being happy. Precious is an amazing young woman with an unyielding desire to break out of her hellish predicament – she is the victim of practically every bad thing that could ever happen to a person. There are several occasions where one would expect Precious to give up, but no matter how bad things get, her strength and tenacity shine through. This is a story of perseverance and hope. I guarantee that not one viewer will leave the film thinking, “my life is worse than Precious’.” The moral is: if Precious can succeed in life, why can’t you?

Being that the content of the film is so dense with the stereotypical problems of the ghetto (drugs, incest, rape, abuse, welfare queens, Down Syndrome, HIV/AIDS) and director Lee Daniels opts to portray the images in such an unreal fashion (with oversaturated yellows, oranges and reds interjected with wildly lavish dream sequences), one might expect Precious to click her heels three times while saying “there’s no place like home” and suddenly she returns to Kansas. Precious is essentially a hyper real tale, in which everything from the characters to the plot to the visuals are exaggerated to the point that all of this could only exist in the world of Hollywood. It is also worth noting that the source material (Sapphire’s 1996 novel, Push) was also criticized by many for being exaggerated and overburdened with stereotypes.

Watching Daniels’ film, I continued to dream of a film much more toned down than Precious, maybe even shot on gritty black and white 16mm film stock (a la Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep) – something ripe with realism and honest to the world that it is attempting to represent. Instead, Precious is purely a work of fiction; an emotional roller coaster (a tearjerker, if you will) and true Hollywood fodder – and with Oprah’s seal of approval the possibilities are endless.

Many critics are already predicting that Sidibe and Mo’Nique will be strong contenders during the awards season. Sidibe’s portrayal of Precious, with a blank expression and a glimmer of intense curiosity sparkling in her eyes, is enough to moisten one’s eye sockets. The events unfolding around Precious seem to build and intensify inside her, yet she rarely shows the pain on the outside. Sidibe simply exemplifies restraint while being Precious while Mo'Nique’s gripping performance as Mary Jones (Precious’ mother) is the polar opposite, yet no less worthy of praise. All of the rage and intensity becomes her and Monique plays Mary Jones as the crazed loose cannon that she truly is.

FILM REVIEW: THE WEDDING SONG

Lizzie Brocheré and Olympe Borval star in Karin Albou's The Wedding Song.

Give peace a chance

By Don Simpson

From November 1942 to May 1943 German forces occupied Tunis, which was the Axis powers’ final stronghold in Africa before retreating to Italy. Previously occupied by the French, Tunis was a relatively welcome home for Jews. The German occupation changed that.

Writer-director Karin Albou's The Wedding Song (Le chant des mariées) begins in 1942, prior to the German occupation. Sephardic Jewish teenager, Myriam (Lizzie Brocheré), and her childhood Muslim friend, Nour (Olympe Borval), live next door to each other. The intense and inseparable bond between them is partially akin to sisters and that of lovers – as they appear to always exist on the verge of kissing each other. The teens' closeness lends a strong erotic subtext, as the The Wedding Song reveals their restricted role in Tunisian society – women are only afforded freedom of expression at a pre-wedding party and inside of a hammam (public bathhouse); both situations are female-only.

The two girls are promptly approaching their respective marriages – Nour to her cousin, Khaled (Najib Oudghiri), Myriam to an older Jewish doctor, Raoul (Simon Abkarian). Nour is forbidden to marry Khaled until he finds employment; Myriam resists her marriage to Raoul.

Enter the Germans. They immediately prey on the Muslim population’s inherent nationalism in an attempt to oust the Jews from Tunis. The spread of anti-Jewish propaganda pits Muslims and their Jewish neighbors against each other. The Germans demand that all Jews in Tunis pay an outrageously high fine – which Myriam's mother (Albou) can't afford. The fine lends a new sense of urgency to Myriam’s impending wedding with Raoul (he is rich and can provide protection to Myriam’s family).

Khaled finds work, unfortunately it is for the Germans. If all of the unease caused by the German occupation did not already cause enough tension between Myriam and Nour, Khaled’s new job definitely does. Khaled convinces Nour that the inequalities in Tunis were brought about by the Jews: Jews are rich, while Muslims are poor; Jews attend school, while Muslims do not; Jews are friends with the French, while Muslims want to be freed from French occupation.

Entrancing, stimulating and motivational, French director Albou’s The Wedding Song continues a discussion of themes from her 2005 film, La Petite Jérusalem: female sexuality in repressive cultures and relationships between Muslims and Jews. Albou professes that peace is possible between Muslims and Jews, just as Myriam and Nour's friendship is saved purely by mentally conquering their cultural differences and the politics of racism.

FILM REVIEW: THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD

The Yes Men fix roll a little fun at terror with Halliburton's Survivaball.


Sí se puede!

By Don Simpson

Directed by Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno (a.k.a. the Yes Men), and co-directed by Kurt Engfehr (editor-producer Bowling for Columbine; Fahrenheit 9/11), this humor-injected political documentary makes Michael Moore’s most recent effort seem utterly uninspired. Posing as high-ranking representatives of evil corporations, the Yes Men con their way into business conferences and television interviews in order to wake up their audiences to the dangers of passively allowing greed to rule the world. The results are more than just silly activist pranks; the actions of the Yes Men are thoughtfully conceived acts of protest designed to reach the largest possible audiences, inciting discussion, debate and action.

One example, Bichlbaum, in the guise of a Dow Chemical spokesperson, appears on a BBC News interview (viewed by over 300 million viewers) and announces that Dow will finally clean up the site of the largest industrial accident in history, the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. As a result people celebrate worldwide while Dow's stock value free falls, losing over two billion dollars. But the reality is Dow will never clean up Bhopal because the stockholders will never stand for it. With the market guiding our morality, our whole planet is at risk. But, there is a bright side: the audience of the BBC News was instantly re-educated on the subject of the Bhopal tragedy and presented with a perfectly viable solution that would only hurt the greedy capitalistic interests of Dow Chemical and its shareholders. The stunt resulted in over 600 articles in the US press about how Dow had purchased Union Carbide but was refusing to deal with Union Carbide’s liabilities in Bhopal.

Another example is when The Yes Men appear in New Orleans in front of 1000 contractors as representatives of HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Bichlbaum (alongside an unsuspecting Mayor Ray Nagin) turns the tables on the government’s plan to tear down livable housing projects (to build new mixed-income developments) as he announces that HUD’s revised strategy is to keep the existing housing projects in tact. The most surprising part is that the contractors appear to agree. Bichlbaum also announces that Exxon and Shell have agreed to finance the rebuilding of New Orleans’ wetlands (a natural barrier to hurricanes) from part of their 60 billion dollars in profits this year – a claim less believable, but met with a welcome reception. The result of the Yes Men’s shenanigans: the contractors and people of New Orleans now know that the housing projects are being knocked down by the government out of pure greed. They also know that Exxon and Shell made their city much more vulnerable to hurricanes.

But, wait, that’s not all! The Yes Men get into plenty of other mischief, including: golden skeletons, SurvivaBalls, climate-victim candles and a fake issue of the New York Times.

Sure, The Yes Men Fix the World still suffers (just like Moore’s films) from preaching to the choir. The film itself provokes more giggles than action, but it’s the immediate results of their actual gonzo schemes that count (and those schemes are witnessed firsthand by people of various political persuasions). In fact, I see The Yes Men Fix the World as a public relations piece, highlighting the clever actions of Bichlbaum and Bonanno since November 2004 (The documentary, The Yes Men, was released in 2003). Of course, naysayers will discredit the Yes Men as liars because they misrepresent themselves, but sometimes a little white lie is necessary to discover the truth. The Yes Men’s lies are purely a means to unravel the web of lies spun by their targets.

Honestly, I cannot believe that the Yes Men have not been sued or incarcerated, and that large corporations, government officials and media still fall for their tricks. In fact, the Yes Men just pulled one over on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on October 19, 2009. Let’s hope that the effect of that stunt reverberates to influence effective climate legislation!

AFI FEST 2009: A SINGLE MAN

Jim (Matthew Goode) and George (Colin Firth) in Tom Ford's A Single Man.

Heart attacks

By John Esther

A gala selection at AFI Fest 2009, fashion designer-turned-filmmaker Tom Ford's adaptation of Christopher Isherwood's novel of the same name is charged with anger, angst, ego and eroticism.

A US premiere, after credits continue-um with a naked male underwater, A Single Man shifts in a dreamlike state blending eros and thanatos as George (Colin Firth) walks toward a wide-eyed dead Jim (Matthew Goode) laying in bloody snow and kisses him. It is a haunting scene of love and lost shattered by the dreamer denied as George wakes up to his miserable existence.

Miserable existence? On the surface, George seems to have his life in order: money, style, architecture, art and some solitude. Yet this means little to George.

In one of the most gripping film scenes this year, we quickly discover George has lost the love of his life, Jim. He is paralyzed by the loss. Being what they and the times were, the man "light in the loafers" is not permitted to attend Jim's funeral. His mourning must be done alone.

Set over the course of a day, we watch George losing his grip with the present through flashbacks of his past. Stricken by what he no longer has, George is incapable of realizing what the future could hold. With young men flirting with him under the golden California sun, fate may have something good in store, but uptight, determined George continues to plan his demise. The former Londoner who now lives in Los Angeles accepts the inevitability of death, but why, or so why not, hurry up with it?

Although minutely flawed with pretentiousness and filled with a ghastly glamorization of cigarette smoking (plus I would like to see the car crash scene again -- in retrospect, the model of the car seems more recent than 1962), Ford's feature directorial debut bursts with radiant images of love, loss and lust in rather equal measures. Rather than making our lives hell, sometimes other people are the only heaven we will ever know and Ford designs this sentiment like a fine suit. (A Single Man reminds one a lot of last year's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.)

Firth's portrayal of a man of his times and times loves lost is brilliant. It is probably the best performance I have seen this year (I imagine he had a little help from Isherwood's novel if not Isherwood's longtime lover, Don Bachardy, as well). Co-starring Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult. (Recommended)

(A Single Man is scheduled to screen Nov. 5, 7 p.m. at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, 6925 Hollywood Blvd. For more information: 866/AFI-FEST; www.afi.com)

AFI FEST 2009: BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS

Terence (Nicolas Cage) and Frankie (Eva Mendes) waste away in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.

No big easy watch

By Miranda Inganni

Detective Terence McDonagh (Nicolas Cage), a policeman honored for his heroics during Hurricane Katrina, is now a drug addict using his gun and police badge to wield power and get whatever he wants.

Along with his prostitute girlfriend, Frankie (Eva Mendes), McDonagh spirals out of control. On the job he teams up with Big Fate (Xzibit), trying to solve the murder of a group of illegal Senegalese immigrants while off the job helping him acquire some illegal narcotics. It just so happens that Big Fate is not only a drug lord, but also the prime suspect in the murders.

For those folks who enjoy watching Cage play a crazed addict a la Leaving Las Vegas, director Werner Herzog's remake of Abel Ferrara's 1992 film starring Harvey Keitel may tickle their fancy. This World Cinema selection did not tickle mine. Relocating the film from New York to New Orleans did not seem to help either, and the hallucinations involving reptiles and voodoo dancing are silly.

(Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is scheduled to screen today, 7 p.m., Mann's Chinese Theater 1, Hollywood Blvd. For more information: 866/AFI-Fest; www.afi.com)

AFI FEST 2009: LOOKING FOR ERIC

Eric Cantona and Steve Evets star in Ken Loach's Looking for Eric.

Going postal

By Ed Rampell

The AFI Fest often premieres hard to see but nevertheless worthy films for Los Angelenos, such as Ken Loach’s stellar, stirring Looking For Eric.

In the past this great progressive British helmer has directed explicitly political features, such as 1995’s Spanish Civil War classic Land and Freedom, 1996’s pro-Sandinista Carla’s Song, 2000’s L.A.-set, pro-union Bread and Roses, 2006’s Irish Revolution drama The Wind That Shakes the Barley, etc. He has also placed working class life under the movie magnifying glass in films such as 1998’s My Name is Joe.

Looking For Eric combines both Loach trends – with a dose of magical realism. The title character refers to Eric Bishop, a washed-up mailman (Steve Evets) subject to panic attacks and Eric Cantona, the real life soccer player who – like Humphrey Bogart in Woody Allen’s 1972 Play It Again, Sam – appears to advise the proletarian protagonist on how to be heroic and play it cool.

The ending to this World Cinema selection is a thinly veiled socialist solution, as mass unity and action intervene, with a mob of mailman and other UK workers singing "La Marseillaise," taking matters into their own plebian hands and going postal. The rousing finale may be a reference to Bertolt Brecht’s athletic socialist clubs in the newly re-released German classic, Kuhle Wampe. Of course, in the best tradition of Wilhelm Reich, the mass action also gives Eric the confidence to finally – after 30 freakin’ years – get the girl (Stephanie Bishop). Bravo, Loach!

(Looking For Eric is scheduled to screen Nov. 5, 7 p.m., at Mann Chinese Theater 1, 6801 Hollywood Blvd. For more information: 866/AFI-FEST; www.afi.com.)

AFI FEST 2009: BELLAMY

Gerard Depardieu and Jacques Gamblin star in Bellamy.

By Ed Rampell

Fifty years after the French Nouvelle Vague swept cinema, auteur Claude Chabrol, one of the masters of that innovative movie movement with classics like 1969’s La Femme Infidele, is back with the North American premiere of Bellamy.

In this mystery, death does not take a holiday, as vacationing Parisian police inspector Paul Bellamy (a more understated Gerard Depardieu) is swept up in investigating local crimes of passion. But rather than emphasizing the action inherently associated with violence like a typical policier thriller would, Chabrol instead concentrates on the characters’ emotional underpinnings. Not only of the criminals, but Bellamy’s own family politics, with his n’er-do-well half-brother Jacques (the resentful Clovis Cornillac) and Bellamy’s wife, Francoise (the seductive Marie Bunel). Their erotic playfulness suggests a 21st century, grown-up version of Nick and Nora Charles in the Thin Man series.

While stylishly directed this World Cinema selection doesn’t have any of the cinematic panache and inventiveness of 1959’s (and beyond) New Wave classics, such as the jump cuts in Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless or the haunting freeze frame that closes Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows (BTW, the best movie ever made about unhappy childhood). But with Bellamy’s focus on emotional intensity, rather than on mindless action, 79-year-old Chabrol continues the tradition of a New Wave that long ago ebbed -- although his talent never has.

(Bellamy screened Nov. 1, 1 p.m. at Mann Chinese Theater 1, 6801 Hollywood Blvd. For more info: 866/AFI-FEST; www.afi.com.)

AFI FEST 2009: FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Jason Schwartzman at the North American premiere of Fantastic Mr. Fox. The feature opened AFI Fest 2009. Photo by Ed Rampell.

Wes Anderson gets animated

By Ed Rampell

During Opening Night at AFI Fest 2009 last Friday night, I asked Wes Anderson, the co-writer/director of quirky character driven pix such as 2001’s The Royal Tenenbaums and 2007’s The Darjeeling Limited, “what’s the difference between directing live action and animated films?” The rail thin, long-haired 40-year-old replied: “Animation is lots slower.”

Director Wes Anderson at the North American premiere of Fantastic Mr. Fox at the AFI Fest 2009, Grauman's Chinese Theatre, Hollywood. Photo by Ed Rampell.

Indeed. The excruciatingly executed handmade stop-motion techniques pioneered in classics such as King Kong and Ray Harryhausen’s Sinbad, Gulliver and Argonauts flicks must require tons of patience and perseverance to pull off. But Anderson acquits himself well in Fantastic Mr. Fox, based on the story by Roald Dahl (who may have been strange but whose work is no stranger to animation).

In a nutshell, Fantastic Mr. Fox is an animated parable about the struggle for survival that children of all ages will enjoy. Top actors provide the characters’ voices, including George Clooney as the rascally Mr. Fox, Meryl Streep as foxy Mrs. Fox, Jason Schwartzman as their klutzy cub Ash and Bill Murray as Badger – who, in that hallowed Hollywood tradition of typecasting, an attorney. Let’s hope, however, that Anderson didn’t typecast himself by playing Weasel! A good time is had by all, on and off-screen, in this saga of the survival of the foxiest – which is, but of course, a 20th Century Fox release.

(Fantastic Mr. Fox screened as the opening night gala, Oct. 30, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. For more information: 866/AFI-FEST; www.afi.com.)